The coaches.

each of those examples has elite/highly picked players involved. If Chicago is only kind of bad and doesn't win the draft lottery they don't get Kane or Toews and they don't win either Cup. if the Kings don't have Doughty they don't have the Cups also. in addition they also obviously hit home runs w/ Kopitar and Quick.

so Im saying Buffalo can add a new coach and add elite talent all at once this off season. the locker room that exists there now doesn't seem to be conducive to winning so cleaning it up while adding real hope in the off season makes the most sense to me.

 

I'm not talking about the cups, I'm talking about the 1 or 2 years before they were even a good/playoff(slash for cutter) team.

I see your point, I just don't think the lockerroom even matters much yet given the last 3 years. Until they're good, or competing for a playoff spot, I think the benefit of veteran leader types is greatly overrated compared to everything else. It's essentially adding Gordon, Hendricks, and Ference to EDM for example. Maybe Khabibulin, Aucoin, and Lapointe to 06' Chicago for example.

 

so in Chicago's circumstance what was the major factor in the turnaround- Toews and Kane coming in right?
thats the basis of my argument here, Buffalo needs their Kane or Toews or they'll be hard pressed to be a contender.

 

Are we talking about Buffalo being a contender or to turn the corner to every year playoff contention?

My answer was ownership's change, ownership change, ownership change.

You'll find plenty talking Toews and Kane including most of the out of town media. They were certainly factors, but Toews and Kane weren't going to accomplish too much more than Mackinnon and Landeskog have so far.

They were 10th in the conference before Scotty Bowman showed up, but in 2008 they were starting to be competitive. They started turning the corner when ownership changed, everybody's butt cheeks got a little tight because they knew once McDonough was brought in that many heads were going to role. Most of the few Hawks fans were really high on Toews, but almost all of them (counted by the dozens, all morons for wasting our lives before then) would point to Rocky more than the 2 stars.

 

even with that thinking Buffalo has their ownership in place and the next phase should be the players, especially considering the small window that they should be in to acquire elite players through the draft and the opportunities that the 2015 draft gives. missing out on one of these 2 would be catastrophic for Buffalo. Buffalo doesn't need a Gudbranson, they need a marquee player to build around and market. As an aside I also think they need strong vets in the room to show the kids how to be a pro. I don't think that's just lip service I think thats important. Brian Gionta will be great for this. Your point on this w/ Edmonton is valid but Edmonton is just its own special disaster.

 

I think that if they have 1 legitimate top pair dman and 3 top 4s and 2 legitimate top line forwards (28+ goal types in any top 6 combination) they can build the rest around that. To me, it's a matter making sure you have 1 or 2 players the other coach HAS to matchup against and they have to have at least one they can stick effectively against the opponent's top line. Once that's done, the level of talent can be accounted for or adjusted elsewhere in the lineup. I dont' think the team needs a franchise talent straight out of the draft in 3 years or less. Giroux, Karlsson, Tarasenko (he's a beast), Benn, Johansen, Getzlaf etc. were found after the top 3 anyway.

The other thing to consider is that if they waste more time, months or years, they roll back another year on the contracts. That eats in to the ability to round out a contending roster. Instead of year over year contention with a stable roster, they'll have to go through significant turnover faster.

 

True, I should have just stuck to Rutherfordian examples, FLA, and Chicago.

 

I disagree here.
I think the most important part right now, given the size and depth of their pool, is too effectively slot and develop players rather than acquiring more. If they don't know where the players are going to go and how they're going to do, the last thing they need to do is throw more players into the mix. Time and players will be lost and it creates for a mess in terms of asset management.

Since they appear to be doing nothing other than waiting for players to get good on their own, without the help of a strong developmental coaching staff and/or FO that is slotting players. I think the best answer right now is to just tank.
If the opportunity to unsuck on the ice presents itself, I think tanking does more harm than good. It's one thing to just be bad and back into the bottom two slots, but to do it like they're doing it isn't going to fastforward their way to contention imo. Murray can say it all he wants, but I'm hard pressed to believe he can really count on any more than 7 or 8 players here today will be there or should be there in 3 years.

 

Too bad we talk about Buffalo all over the place but not in the Buffalo thread.
Laviollete wants attention here:
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au68N4JwCl8[/video]

 

he should've grabbed his junk at the end. damn... Chicago does it so much better.

 

I think they have a surgically attached shock collar on Q's neck that they activate when he talks to the media. He's still been fined a number of times, and that's just by the league.

http://chicago.suntimes.com/blackha...khawks-quennevilles-intensity-good-lift-laugh

 

true, but those are exceptions. i can't believe that you have Karlsson on your list here, i know how you feel about him. on the same note he does need to be accounted for.

for Buffalo you won't be losing too much in that turnover. if you identify your core and in a situation like this Id assume that you start small w/ your core and you build out from there. Add veterans on short term deals and make smart FA signings while building out from your McDavid/ Reinhart/ and whoever else you like all while keeping players in the AHL as long as possible.

they already have the picks and they're going to use them. this will allow them to be more apt to slow play some of the prospects they'll acquire and give a kick in the butt to the ones already in the system. of course they need to be on a 3 and 5 and whatever year plan at all times and Im sure Murray is but that roster is so fluid that I think they just continue to take the players that they have rated as the best talents while taking where and when they will slot in to the future lineup in to account.

my thinking as well. this team will completely change in the future. it actually kind of seems like they're where the NYI were right before taking Tavares. lots of turnover and prospects ahead.

 

There's a lot here about the Buffalo Sabres, and I have not read every message carefully enough to post a cogent response to the many points. What I'll say is that I appreciate what both Matty & Bob are saying, but I think Bob's points hit the mark a bit more often. This is the Coachs' thread, so I will try to summarize a few things from a BUF fan's perspective:
- The team is absolutely terrible, but they are in an attractive position for any GM that relishes the chance to build a team and put his stamp on it. They've got a very broad and deep pipeline, and they've got a great number of future assets to add soon.
- The team has to decide on which style they will go forward with, and a lot of that has to do with the coach. The main focus must be a proper plan for developing their pipeline. With over 50 contracts in the organization, (some are still in Jrs.), with at least two top NCAA players to sign soon, deciding who will not be part of the team's future is going to be more important than deciding who stays or who gets added. A SC winning team usually has two true stars and a strong support cast around them. Reinhart should be a star, and McEichel would definitely be a second. Some players, (Girgensons, Faschings, as two examples), could develop into stars. It is not crucial that the team gets McEichel, (although that's highly likely given the state of the team this year), but would be a huge plus for obvious reasons.
- I have thought that Nolan was a stop-gap brought in by a departed acting-GM, and that his role is primarily not to mess up any young player's confidence too much. He's a disciplinarian, and that is a good thing to a point. Now with about 12 months behind the bench I think some of his shortcomings are coming more into focus. Nolan is not going to be IMO part of the future, so it's important that they get that man so they can develop the system.
- The keys for BUF eventually becoming a SC contender are to properly develop their current pipeline. This also means shipping some prospects out for better fits. The coach has to change, and the sooner the better as far as I am concerned.
- Tim Murray proved in July that it's easy "to spend money" and get players to come to BUF. I think both Gionta and Moulson are exactly the type of veteran players the team needs. I do not think it will be too hard to add pieces, when needed, through FA.
- Making the correct decisions about players, prospects, and coaches that are already in the organization are much more important than focusing on future draft picks. If they make the right decisions about who fits into their system, then the draft picks in June should just be a nice bonus.

 

Yeah, I'm not Karlsson's biggest fan, or Ovechkin's but they are game changers no matter how they're utilized.

I don't think they are the exception. There are more franchise-type players outside of the top 3 overall than the opposite.
In the of the last 15 draft classes, there have only been about 20 real game changing talents taken in the top 3 with guys like Spezza, Kovy, and EStaal having dropped out of the list. Maybe Drouin, Duchene, and Reinhart fill the void.

There's about a 60% that any of the top 3 overall are nothing more than a really good player or less. We can do the draft breakdown numbers over the summer, but that's the general idea of it. I don't think the odds are good enough. That's why I'm not too concerned about getting the 1st or 2nd overall or even 3rd for Buffalo. Not only could they fall off the map like a Huberdeau, Yak, MAF, etc. they could get injured. They're just one piece of a larger machine so if there's a chance to start taking a pool of the size and depth of Buffalo's forward, I think that's the most important thing to do.

Every time they add bluechip prospects at this point, they're just amplifying the inefficiency and likelihood of offsetting the gain that comes with a really high pick. Here are types of examples I'm referring to when I talk about gains being offset:
Washington overlooked Oduya (always needed help at the back), Hawks missed out on Anderson (spent 3 contending years trying to address the net), NYI missed out on Spurgeon (they just traded for one of those), LA dropped the ball on Brian Boyle (might have saved the Penner mess), etc.

None of those examples are franchise breakers or anything of the sort given the circumstances at the time, and it's very possible those organizations do the same thing no matter the circumstances. I still think overloading the pool is more likely to lead to wasted assets that offset the gain that comes with more really high picks. In many cases, it's spinning tires. LA was a couple Niewendyk non-movesfrom imploding completely in 12', and Chicago dies and wastes more time had they not had an owner die but it worked out for those 2 obviously.

I get what you're saying but this adds to the problem of core and support identification since it meant that you went another season of wasted shifts unable to gauge situational and systemic effectiveness of potential core types, especially players that are NOT one dimensional. For Kane, Stamkos, and Seguin types it's easy imo, for Landeskog types it's more complicated...in large, developed prospect pools like Buffalo's. In weak or even most average systems, it doesn't matter, I would agree with what you wrote.

 

Depending on the context I agree with that. I was trying to focus on whether or not it's better to tank. Time is a problem. By tanking, they're amplifying the risk, in part because of the time line and how it further restricts the ability to slow play anything. There are only so many minutes of ice time and Rochester is about to get overloaded as it is.

Just to clarify in case it was lost. I'm talking about tanking leading to inefficiencies that offset the gain that a number 2 overall pick could bring instead of a number 7 provided the focus was on trying to develop the roster. Right now, there's almost no way I can see they're picking above the top 3 unless AZ really puts the pedal to the dumpster.

Usually a team is much better off at number 2 than number 10, but for where Buffalo is, I think worrying about moving up for a higher pick by losing more than they have to is detrimental to their longer term goals.

 

What would be ironic would be if a team tanks and then with the new lottery system they miss the top 2 picks. Next year it could be even worse and they could fall as low as 5th.

 

excellent posts bob, lots of good points as usual. for this specific example however I disagree with this-

there is a very rare opportunity in the 2015 draft to grab 2 exceptional players. not your average #1 overall but your once in a decade type kid?.and there are two of them. Finishing outside of that would be a huge mistake when you're already so bad. The 2014/15 Sabres are going to get torched either way- the roster, the coaches, everything will change. This goes to my original point and to why we're on this thread- there's no need to bring in a new coach in to this disaster because they're going to start fresh anyway. No matter who it is behind the bench here he's a stop gap at best and they'll be employed elsewhere once Buffalo has a roster that can compete. They can sell hope through a new coach and attitude and McEichel on tiny little fridge magnets.

 

Are you saying there was a dropoff from OV and Malkin down to Valabik, Tukonen, and AJ Thelen at 9-10-11 in 2003?
I get the hype on the talent on these two coming out, but it's not like they're absolute giants like Malkin and OV are or were, so I'm going to keep a bit a skepticism.

Anyway, while I would prefer Buffalo took the year to start progression forward because of many of the reasons listed above, the reality is that it won't happen. I'm talking about a hypothetical preference. They should be in good shape to win one of the top 2. As Mikey pointed out, there's also the chance of missing the lottery.

 

Stop gap or not, I still think 30+ games over about 11 weeks is enough to salvage something from this year.

I agree everything is still going to disappear, and I'm fine with that. I just hate seeing so much time wasted, I think it projects to more kung-fu-style bad in the coming years no matter who gets wrapped into the fold.

 

Who's the worst coach in the league right now?

Berube is still my number 1
Horachek and Nolan competing hard for number 2